Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Had M1 Mac Pro Ready to Ship Months Ago, Mac Mini Redesign Unlikely
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Won't be welcome news? People already know...it's been over 2 years and it still hasn't shipped or even been announced.
Nothing really wrong with the current Mac mini design anyway. New designs usually mean price increase. Just give us a M2/M2 Pro option and make the step up model 16/512 instead of 8/512.
Honestly, I don’t “care” what the Mini M2 looks like. I just want it…yesterday.
It’s INSANE how that littlest box will crush my 5 year old Win Xeon rig (which I CANT UPGRADE to Win11) and at 1/3 of it fully specced to boot.
The longer it stays identical design wise, the more utilitarian and “forget about the box” it becomes. In a way, it’s extremely un-Apple in a very Apple way.
It doesn’t stand out, it’s not flashy…it’s just awesome.
I WOULD have liked a Mac Micro in the same size/form factor as Apple TV to compete with NUC. It could get M1 and M2 for Mac Mini…but it’s just a very cool idea.
It’s INSANE how that littlest box will crush my 5 year old Win Xeon rig (which I CANT UPGRADE to Win11) and at 1/3 of it fully specced to boot.
The longer it stays identical design wise, the more utilitarian and “forget about the box” it becomes. In a way, it’s extremely un-Apple in a very Apple way.
It doesn’t stand out, it’s not flashy…it’s just awesome.
I WOULD have liked a Mac Micro in the same size/form factor as Apple TV to compete with NUC. It could get M1 and M2 for Mac Mini…but it’s just a very cool idea.
Over two years from when Apple announced that they were moving to Apple silicon in the near future. Sure. But since the transition started at the end of Nov 2020 we still have a bit to go before the two year deadline.
Loving my M1 Mac Mini but I would jump to an M2 Pro Mac Mini that supported more than one 5k display in a heartbeat.
Gurman said the "Apple Silicon" Mac Pro was "half the size" of the current Mac Pro. The Studio is no where near half the size. Closer to a 1/4 the size (volume) than to 1/2 the size ( technically down in the 10% range).
There were very good chance the "half sized" Mac Pro was going to have PCI-e slots. Perhaps not 400W video card sized slots but at least a few for storage , A/V capture , networking, etc.
"half sized" means that some of the slots ( and drive mount frame points) were going to disappear but it would be substantially bigger than a Mini or a 3x Mini stack.
The next Mac Pro probably won't be as highly modular as the current Mac Pro , but it really can't do back to about less than the Mac Pro 2013 levels. Apple basically admitted that had issues on internal storage capacity and scale ( leaning on Thunderbolt too much) and variety of compact high I/O bandwidth integrations.
The Studio does go after the lower end and higher volume of the Mac Pro space though. As Apple outlined, they cover the most popular CPU (12 cores ) and the most frequently bought( from them) GPU moudle W5700 with the Studio. There is a decent set of classic Mac Pro users the Studio covers , but it wasn't some of the more vocal and specialized sets. Apple still probably isn't going to cover "everybody" in the old school Mac Pro group. Lots will camp out in 'protest' on their MP 2019 systems. Apple probably won't care much for several years since those folks will have paid a ton of money to sit out there on the fringe.
There is decent chance Apple punted on a "M1" generation solution because it is probably is somewhat fixed on just the graphics and if going to to be fixed in time 'M2' would be better than the alternative at this point. End of 2022 the kicking sand in the face of W5700 is beating up on a multiple year old GPU. ( If they are waiting on TSMC N3 for the 'large' dies than more manageable package sizes also. They can pull back the size of the dies packaging together. ).
The Studio was/is a bigger 'threat' to a "iMac Pro" (with almost the same LCD screen ) than it is to the top 'half' of the Mac Pro line up. That is why Apple used it to 'transition' the iMac 27" to Apple Silicon. Even Apple presented this as the iMac replacement; not the Mac Pro replacement. ( Yes, it is not a direct replacement for either. Apple is likely going to wait and see about a 'big screen' iMac replacement though. How they are going to position against the Studio is a much thornier problem if there is nothing 'magical' price wise with the screen. There are more than several decent options to pair a Studio with from other vendors. )
I literally almost spit my coffee out 🤣🤣
I do wonder if the M* chips will stick with the 18 month cadence (like its A*x ancestors); rather than this strange belief that the M* series is going to catchup to the A* series, which seems unlikely to me. Calling the M2 a "stop gap" just seems strange. Sure it is a Tock not a Tick (or is that Tick not a Tock?).
I kinda suspect that the M1 "Quadra" (I like that name more than Extreme) was planned to be released this year and the 4x M1 Max package just didn't make it, and they probably could have shipping a M1 Ultra Mac Pro, but they correctly concluded that that would be a silly product given the M1 Ultra Mac Studio. So we're stuck waiting for the M2 Quadra (neigh Extreme).
The wild story is if the M2 Pro/Max gets 3nm before the iPhone, which is unusual feeling.
I kinda suspect that the M1 "Quadra" (I like that name more than Extreme) was planned to be released this year and the 4x M1 Max package just didn't make it, and they probably could have shipping a M1 Ultra Mac Pro, but they correctly concluded that that would be a silly product given the M1 Ultra Mac Studio. So we're stuck waiting for the M2 Quadra (neigh Extreme).
The wild story is if the M2 Pro/Max gets 3nm before the iPhone, which is unusual feeling.
Extreme! Really? We shall then have to have Extreme Pro (ish) off course. Infinity is probably taken so let's all agree on Extreme Pro +1 after all this.
Edit: Sandisk had it down first with Ultra, Ultra Plus, Extreme, and Extreme Pro.
Edit: Sandisk had it down first with Ultra, Ultra Plus, Extreme, and Extreme Pro.
I don’t really see where the mythical high end Mac Mini sits. Is there rrally room for a Mini with the Pro chip? Once you’ve put in say 512gb SSD and 24gb or 32gb of memory you’d be perilously close price wise to the entry level studio.
Sounds pretty boring actually compared to all the M1 Pro Mini rumors. The spec bump M2 13" MBP didn't cause much love, with the old stereo speakers and old 720P camera.
Currently there are ZERO desktop Macs with the "M* Pro" cut down chip, and a big price gap in base SKUs ($899.00 to $1,999.00). Clearly a Mac mini with an M* Pro could fit between the base Mac Studio and current high-end Mac mini (hopefully getting rid of that Intel one at the same time).
Apple needs to release M2 Extreme Mac Pro in color Mid-Night.
...and then get ready for all the people refunding it over fingerprints.
(I'm saying that in jest, of course. I'm one of those people who wouldn't have bought the midnight version because of it being the fingerprint magnet it is.)
Not particularly practical given Apple's focus on perf/watt and bill of material cost effectiveness so far.
Remember the SoC has absorbed the boot, security , and some of the power management responsiblities also. There are cohort chips that go along with those duties. Either have to put those on the board also or create an even bigger edge connector to run all of that higher power consuming I/O off if this board.
Similar issues. All the GPU output and Thunderbolt output is inside the SoC. So either put the TB ports on the card or now have an even bigger edge connector and more re-drivers to run 'long distance' I/O to remote plugs. Even if take those design trade-offs the likely the logic board and a module 1-3 iterations down will be signal compatible is likely low ( e.g. DP went from 1.3 , 1.4 , 1.4a , and should be going to 2.0. ). That is why standard GPU cards come with their own edge connectors over time. (as opposed to modular ports).
Again dragging the connection from the SSD controller to an even more remote set of NAND modules across a "thick edge" connector is going to introduce increased power issues. Nor is it likely to be compatible for multiple iterations into the future.
Finally if going to have a SoC that provisions 2 or 3 x16 PCI-e v4 Lane bundles off the Soc.... how do you get 32-48 lanes off this card along with all of the other stuff above?
Multiple folks are trying revive the old CPU riser card from the Mac Pro 2009-2012 models but the chipsets and I/O being driven are substantively different. For CPU with no integrated PCI-e controller , no SSD controler, no GPU , no Thunderbolt controller and running at less than 100W that made sense. But for a modern high end SoC runing around 300W and has all of those other duties... flipping it vertical and detaching it from the primary backplane isn't going to necessarily be a practical improvement in effective volume utilization or controlling costs.
I’m genuinely curious if it will even have it. Or will we fully be in the era of apple silicon chips. Maybe you can expand by adding another M1 Ultra module. That might be the only way to have any expansion.
I am genuinely curious and don’t know how this Mac Pro is going to work.
Nonsense. The M2 has exactly the same display controller limitations as the M1, and thus the USB Type-C ports on the M2 MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro are described exactly the same way in the tech specs as they were for the M1 models:
The M1 Pro / Max have additional display controllers which allow them to drive 3 and 5 displays respectively. The ports are therefore listed as Thunderbolt 4 in the specs (Thunderbolt 4 certification requires support for multiple displays):
The full capabilities are:
M1: built-in panel / HDMI = 1 display up to 5120 x 4096 (2560 x 2048 HiDPI)
external / USB Type-C = 1 display up to 6144 x 4096 (3072 x 2048 HiDPI)
M1 Pro: built-in panel / HDMI = 1 display up to 7680 x 4096 (3840 x 2048 HiDPI)
external / USB Type-C = 2 displays up to 7680 x 4096 (3840 x 2048 HiDPI)
M1 Max and M1 Ultra: built-in panel / HDMI = 1 display up to 7680 x 4096 (3840 x 2048 HiDPI)
external / USB Type-C = 4 displays up to 7680 x 4096 (3840 x 2048 HiDPI)
I haven't checked the maximum supported resolutions for the M2 yet, but I can assure you that it did not sprout an additional external display controller. Hector Martin of the Asahi Linux project has discussed this extensively on Twitter.
